Ashby cum Fenby Community Led Plan Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 2 Introduction ...... 2 Methodology ...... 2 Image 1: Community Led Plan Event ...... 3 Attendance ...... 3 Key Findings ...... 4 Public Rights of Way (PROWS) ...... 5 Figure 1: Concerns Raised About PROWS By Type ...... 5 Suggestions and Actions ...... 5 Drains, Ditches and Hedges ...... 6 Suggestions & Actions ...... 6 Roads, Speeding and Large Vehicles ...... 7 Figure 2: Residents That Had Concern about the Condition of the Roads ...... 7 Figure 3: Residents That Consider The Speed Limits Appropriate ...... 7 Figure 4: Residents That Consider Large Vehicles To Be A Problem ...... 8 Figure 5: Top Five Concerns Raised Around Roads By Type ...... 8 Suggestions: ...... 8 Planning – Development Boundary ...... 10 Figure 6: Residents’ View on the Proposed Development Boundary ...... 10 Suggestions: ...... 10 Summary ...... 11 Action ...... 11 General Issues Identified and Suggestions ...... 12 Acknowledgements ...... 13 Adoption ...... 13 Appendix 1 - All Positive Comments ...... 14 Appendix 2 – Village Attendance By Area ...... 15 Appendix 3 – Village Public Right of Way ...... 16 Appendix 4 – Village Drainage ...... 17 Appendix 5 – Proposed Development Boundary ...... 18 Appendix 6 – Parish Boundary ...... 19 Appendix 7 – Initial Flyer ...... 20 Appendix 8 – Speeding Vehicles Poster ...... 21 Appendix 9 – Village Event Flyer ...... 22 Appendix 10 – Community Pride Flyer ...... 23 Appendix 11 – Archaeological Area ...... 24
1
Executive Summary
Introduction Ashby Cum Fenby is a rural village and sits on the edge of the designated: Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – the Lincolnshire Wolds.
The Parish of Ashby Cum Fenby extends northwards and southwards along the A18 to Waterdell and South Farm respectively. It sweeps eastward across countryside to the Waithe Beck, on the border of Brigsley and the boundary then continues towards Waithe and Grainsby. For reference see appendix 6 - Parish Boundary map.
There is evidence that the village was part of a large Roman settlement; a Roman Well in the grounds of The Hall has been confirmed by archaeologists. Ridge and Furrow in some of the fields suggest Saxon influence. Thus, the village has a large Archaeological Area shown in Appendix 11.
Even today some might say that the central village is behind the times. Some of the responses at the Event called the village ‘quaint’. Indeed, the villagers remarked on the facts that there are no street lights and pavements. This was seen as a positive in the local environment and contributes towards the quietness and calming atmosphere in the village.
The Electoral Role shows that there are presently 205 residents living in 99 houses within the boundary of the Parish. The main residential area is off the B1203 and within the three single track lanes of Post Office Lane, Chapel Lane and Third Lane all of which are connected by Public Footpaths. There is also ribbon development along the Barton Street (A18) and down Brigsley Road. Ashby Hill has two houses, Thoroughfare has four dwellings and we now have the ‘not quite finished’ equestrian centre at South Farm.
Background to the Community Led Plan - CLP.
In the latter part of 2012 it was becoming increasingly clear to the Parish Council that NELC was encouraging communities to undertake CLPs. The Parish Councillors hand delivered to each and every household an explanation sheet asking the residents whether they wanted to take part in a Community Led Plan. There were only two respondents and hence the Parish Council felt that it was not a viable proposition.
In December 2015, the Parish Councillors again, hand delivered to every residence in the Parish another explanation sheet asking the residents if they would attend an event to discuss the issue of a CLP. The Parish Council had 16 responses and felt that it was now a feasible undertaking. These residents were contacted and a date was given for a meeting to discuss the way forward. The Parish Council thought that it was better if the villagers undertook the CLP as this would give more inclusivity for residents. Two Parish Councillors agreed to be part of the group. Methodology The first meeting took place in the Church Hall on 1st February 2016. Eleven residents attended plus two non-residents and members of the Parish Council. Four residents volunteered to be part of The Steering Group. It became clear during this meeting that the ‘Planning for Real Method’ was not appropriate for our village. It was decided to contact North East Lincolnshire Council to gain some guidance. It was agreed that we would hold an Event, for all residents to attend and cover four topics which had been picked out at the meetings. Also, we would have appropriate maps plus a photo map showing parts of the whole village to prompt further areas of concern. A time line was agreed for meetings and the Event.
Another flyer was designed and hand delivered to the households stating the date and time of The Event. Signs were also put up in and around the village to advertise The Event. This is available in appendix 9 – Village Flyer.
2
The Community Led Plan Event took place on Saturday 22nd March 2016 between 2 and 4 p.m. in the Church Hall.
This was the residents opportunity to give their views on the issues and positives in and about the village.
Villagers were asked to mark their property on a map to identify how much of the village the consultation had reached. This is available in Appendix 2.
A series of displays were created, covering the key areas already picked up by the questionnaires. These were:
Planning – Development boundary Public Rights of Way and Horses Drains, Ditches and Hedges Roads, Speeding and Large Vehicles Photo map of the village and surrounding area to provide an open forum to highlight other areas of concern
The public were encouraged to interact with these displays and add comments using sticky notes. 184 comments were made which is an average of 4.2 comments per attendee. Image 1: Community Led Plan Event
The results were collected, collated and transcribed by NELC. The Steering Group met to discuss, consider and action the results. This is their report which will be adopted by Ashby Cum Fenby Parish Council and submitted to North East Lincolnshire Council’s relevant officers detailed below for their consideration:
Planning Highways Public Rights of Way. Development and infrastructure Attendance It was noted that out of 205 possible residents; 42 attended the event. That is a positive 20.4%. These residents largely came from within the Developmental Boundary area of Ashby Cum Fenby.
3
(Waltham, in contrast, has a population of 6,684 and had 470 respondents which is a 7% response rate.) Key Findings 84% of respondents highlighted concerns about the condition of the Public Rights of Way caused by horses (59%), Cycles (14%) and the general condition (27%). Thoroughfare was identified as a local hotspot for blocked drains, flooding and fly tipping. 85% of respondents stated that the speed limit in and around the village are adequate. However, comments reveal that 33% of respondents stated speeding was an issue. 70% of the speeding concerns were for the village of Ashby cum Fenby and the remainder were for the roads leading into the village. 59% of respondents are happy with, or at least accept, the new proposed boundary by North East Lincolnshire Council. However, 87% of respondents consider building outside of this boundary to be unacceptable. The development concerns fit into two clear categories: ‘no to garden infill’ and ‘the infrastructure would not support more houses’.
4
Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Ashby cum Fenby is described as having a ‘Good selection of walks available in picturesque countryside’. It is something that the community treasure and would not want to lose.
83% of comments could identify problem areas. Figure 1: Concerns Raised About PROWS By Type
Of those that highlighted horses as an issue; 57% said that the PROWS were acceptable. Suggestions and Actions Footpath 85 eight comments were made with horses being the only issue. Footpath 86 four comments were made with horses being the only issue. Action: Footpath 85 & 86, Ask NELC to review and feedback to Parish Council. Footpath 89 is thought slippery by two responses and deemed too narrow by three out of five comments. This is an ongoing issue of which NELC are aware. Action: Ask Parish Council to continue to review on a monthly basis. Bridleway 91 had three comments about it being closed and one comment about it being slippery. Bridleway 91 has been closed for some time. This has been an ongoing issue. It is being diverted for safer access to the Barton Street. Bridleway 91 is now open. Footpath 92 had one comment about it being closed. The Steering Group would like to see the access to the Barton Street (A18) going through Fenby Top Wood to come out opposite to Bridleway 140. Action: Parish Council to liaise with NELC PROWS department. 56% of comments agreed that the amount and type of PROWS were adequate. However, Footpath 90 was identified to be made a bridleway and to join up with Bridleway 91 for horse safety purposes. There are stables situated along this path and the only way that they can get out is along the main road without walking along a footpath. The Steering Group think that this is a good idea. Action: Ask Parish Council to contact NELC and discuss the idea. Footpath 88: the PROWS map needs updating. It no longer goes from Third Lane to meet with Footpath 89. Action: The Parish Council to contact the PROWS officer MS Nicola Hardy to discuss mapping issue.
Overall, the Steering Group feel that the villagers are happy with the accessibility and conditions of the PROWS. Ashby Cum Fenby has many horse liveries around; it is considered safer to have horses on Bridleways than on roads. Action: Parish Council to liaise with North East Lincolnshire PROWS department to ask them to review all the above mentioned PROWS in and around Ashby Cum Fenby.
5
Drains, Ditches and Hedges
Hedges are generally really good and the Main Road was the only area identified with unkempt hedges. Residents maintain and keep their hedges in good order, any problem areas or instances of hedges requiring attention in or around the village can be raised through the Parish Council or Neighbourhood services. Blocked drains were identified on Thoroughfare (3 comments), Chapel Lane (2), Church (2), Post Office lane (1) and East of Main Road. Although the road gullies are cleaned and emptied regularly there are still occasions when the surface water collects in a few areas within the village. These areas are to be reviewed by the Parish Council and NELC to identify the problem and come up with a solution. The drain gully at the church is on an un-adopted road and not under the authority of NELC, this gully, which leads to a soak away, has a scheme of scheduled maintenance. Flooding was identified on Thoroughfare (5), Church (4), Chapel Lane (1), Third lane (1) and Footpath 90 just off Post Office Lane (The village is in a low lying area and is prone to flooding; Action: these areas identified will be highlighted to NELC highways department.) The central village has not had any flooding for many years. Thoroughfare probably does need investigation. Suggestions & Actions Apply for funding to develop the village pond. It is an asset to the village and should be cleaned out and landscaped. Any residents who wish to form a community group to enable these types of projects and apply for funding would be supported by the Parish Council. An agreement signed by relevant landowners that they will cut the hedges back at appropriate times and stick to it. Landowners are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of their hedges, the parish newsletter will continue to serve as a reminder as to when hedge cutting should be carried out. Parish to recommend local gardeners. The Parish Council review the grass cutting contract annually and invite tenders from local businesses, contact details would be available from the Parish Clerk. Kerbs needed to prevent mud in gullies and drains and to preserve grass verges Clean out and re-instate dykes at Hall Farm corner kerb to divert water in gully. The possibility of installing flush kerbs in certain locations to direct surface water into gullies and retain the road edge will be suggested. Action: Parish Council to contact NELC to assess feasibility. Improve drainage both ends of chapel lane. Surface water from Barton Street needs to be properly addressed to prevent flooding of thoroughfare land and land on Barton Street. The ditches intercepting water runoff around the village need to be maintained in order to prevent the risk of flooding in lower areas. Develop with landowners a rolling programme of ditch cleaning / clearing. The landowners around the village are mostly responsible and accommodating when it comes to ditch clearing. The Parish Council needs only to give them a gentle reminder and invariably the work is done.
6
Roads, Speeding and Large Vehicles
Villagers attending the consultation raised concerns with the condition of the roads and grass verges, the speed of vehicles passing through the village and the B1203, and also comments were received regarding large vehicles damaging the verges.
Figure 2: Residents That Had Concern about the Condition of the Roads
15 of 18 residents who commented on the condition of the roads thought that there were too many potholes. NELC have kindly repaired several potholes in the village since the event so hopefully that should appease those with concerns.
Figure 3: Residents That Consider The Speed Limits Appropriate
17 of 20 residents who commented felt that speed limits in and around the village are appropriate. This shows a large majority are happy with the 20mph limit through the village and most motorists do respect the set limits.
7
Figure 4: Residents That Consider Large Vehicles To Be A Problem
Of those that commented only 1 out of 16 (6%) did not know about the new weight restrictions through the village.
9 of 16 residents who commented see large vehicles passing through the village as a problem. The main concern seemed to be with heavy traffic damaging the verges. The verges are there to be used by passing traffic and placing large rocks to prevent use is to be discouraged. The knock on effect from new housing being built, is that it attracts larger vehicles into the village. Where possible, deliveries can sometimes be requested with 4 wheel vehicles only. This is definitely possible when booking a delivery of heating oil. Figure 5: Top Five Concerns Raised Around Roads By Type
Suggestions: Reduce speed in to village and continue at 20 through it. The 20 mile sign as you enter is not enough, we need reminders through the village The majority of residents feel current speed limits are adequate. NELC conducted research via a ‘golden river’ to find that fears of motorists entering the village speeding are unfounded. Any speeding by staff or diners for Hall Farm can be reported to Mr Durrant at Hall Farm. Most speeding through the village is unfortunately by residents. B1203 from Barton Street to village should be 50mph
8
The Steering Group considers this a valid point as Barton Street is now 50mph limit all the way along. NELC are conducting reviews on speed limits on some rural roads in the borough. There have been no accidents at the junction to turn into the village (or anywhere else). Suggest extending 40mph limit on B1203 up Ashby Hill to A18 roundabout See comment above. If any change necessary, 50mph may be more appropriate, which is a reduction from the current 60 mph limit. To have a vehicle length (as well as weight) restriction: to stop damage to the verges. The Steering Group deemed this inpractical as it would be unenforceable. Speed reminders for third lane for people leaving the holiday cottages. Action: Parish Council to raise with owners. The sign for thoroughfare lane at its junction with Barton Street would read 'Thoroughfare lane' to prevent traffic from assuming short cut for larger vehicles and lorries The weight restriction sign already in place ‘should’ be adequate to disuade larger vehicles from using Thoroughfare. One way system? This is not practical and would possibly create more problems than it solves. Depending on which way the one way system would send vehicles through the village, it would mean more turning traffic either in or out of Thoroughfare to Barton Street, which in the opinion of the Steering Group, would be more dangerous than the current, widely used junction to enter/exit village on to B1203. Possible improved bus service? Discussed by the Steering Group and agreed that the service, although nice to have, would be underused by villagers meaning it wasn’t viable for the bus company. The phone ‘n’ride service is available to residents of Ashby cum Fenby should they wish to use it. Focal point to report pot holes. These can be reported to the parish council Erect stone protection barrier to protect the village green from vehicles The verges are there to be used to allow traffic to pass due to the narrowness of the roads through the village.
9
Planning – Development Boundary Of those attending the community consultation the future development of the village is of paramount importance. In discussion most participants were happy with or at least accepted the proposed extension to the development boundary. A little less than a quarter (24%) wished the development boundary to be reduced to that of the previous demarcation. But this suggestion would serve no practical purpose as approval has already been granted in those areas where an extension to the development boundary is proposed. A minority (17%) of those making comment indicated that an increase in the development area would be acceptable. In discussion, those making this comment were referring to the potential for limited individual planning approval outside the development boundary as has been approved in the past. The majority (59%) were ‘happy’ to accept the proposed development boundary. Figure 6: Residents’ View on the Proposed Development Boundary
20 respondents (87%) stated that they thought building outside the development boundary was unacceptable.
The confidence interval is +/- 13% at a 95% confidence level. This means that we are 95% confident that, if all of the villagers responded, between 74% and 100% of the villagers would deem this action as unacceptable.
Comments made that did not comment on an increase/decrease in boundary included: No to garden infill (5) and Infrastructure concerns (5). Suggestions: Open 3rd lane up to build down for small houses for villagers to down size Planners should take more care when passing planning permission -- re. Large, ugly development off Barton St. Acceptable in certain locations and depending on the type of property built Footpaths to be protected when building takes place Block off post office lane to reduce building of future houses
Particular areas highlighted for no development were: Willow Lakes (2) Field behind Copelands (Homefield) (1)
10
Summary The majority of those participating were in favour with the position of the proposed development boundary to our village and none wished to see any major further development. In discussion it was considered that any extension to the development boundary would destroy the rural character of the village. In particular, concern was expressed that the infrastructure of the road system within the village and the access roads would not safely accept an increase in traffic. Action These results are to be shared with North East Lincolnshire Planning and Development department for their deliberation. We, as a village, have been greatly persuaded by North East Lincolnshire Council to undertake a Community Led Plan. We expect and encourage North East Lincolnshire Planning and Development department to take notice and consideration of the villager’s thoughts and their votes when reviewing future planning applications.
11
General Issues Identified and Suggestions Residents were reminded of several ongoing village events such as the bi-annual Hog Roast and were encouraged to make comments about their continuation and /or make suggestions for additional community events in the future. There were no comments to suggest changes in the future.
It was felt that the majority of residents are responsible and respect the rural ambience surrounding them. The Parish Council will reject the introduction of street lighting and pavements should any such changes be proposed.
There was no indication of crime / safety concerns which suggests that most people are vigilant themselves and for their neighbours.
Photographs of various features within the village were displayed and residents were encouraged to make comments about their individual attraction.
2 people raised concerns about the maintenance of the ‘tunnel’ between Hall Farm Corner and the Church Hall. These trees have a Preservation Order (TPO) and are owned by two different landowners who keep the area in good order. The growth of ivy is prevalent and may weaken these trees over time. 4 people raised concerns about ‘fly tipping’ in Thoroughfare and it was suggested that residents should either contact the Clerk of the Parish Council or go direct to ‘Community Pride’ at NELC. Photographs showed some untidy areas where rubbish has been allowed to build up on private land and development issues where residents made disapproving comments. Any reasons given for remedial action to be taken should be directed to the Clerk of the Parish Council or ‘Community Pride’ at NELC. 2 people expressed a wish that residents use local tradesman but of course this was a suggestion only and cannot be enforced. 1 person mentioned the need for dog waste bins. These are currently situated at both ends of the village and considered adequate by the Steering Group. These bins serve a dual purpose for rubbish and dog waste. The Union Jack flag is currently raised to half-mast following the death of a resident. 1 person expressed a wish for the identity of the resident to be made known at the same time. Action: This issue will be discussed at a Parish Council meeting in the future. 1 person commented that there should be no wind farms, no oil, gas or mineral extraction within 5 miles and no business activity that could give rise to noise, air smell or light pollution. This is not feasible in its entirety as smells from e.g. ‘muck-spreading’ play a valuable role in the farming calendar. Further comments made on the display photographs were generally positive particularly the following:
Meadow between Chapel Lane and Third Lane Village pond – near Hall Farm Corner Deer enclosure Cattle farm Hall Farm – hotel and restaurant facilities Telephone box - serves as a ‘book swap’ No street lights / pavements – peaceful, encourages wildlife Good selection of walks to appreciate views Church – traditional and historic
Action: It has been agreed by the Steering Group that these features should be maintained. The Parish Council should intervene as far as possible if any of these aspects are threatened.
12
Acknowledgements
Ashby Cum Fenby Parish Council for instigating the Community Led Plan.
Kim Kirkham, Clerk to Ashby Cum Fenby Parish Council for her invaluable help.
John Shaw, Parish Councillor for his fantastic Flyer.
The Steering Group for completing the Community Led Plan consisting of the following people: Cherry Ann Pearson - Steering Group Coordinator, Rose Brewster, Ed Green, John Pascoe, Richard Pearson & Nick Pettigrew.
Andrew Dulieu, Consultation and Engagement Officer – Communications & Marketing. North East Lincolnshire Council and his department for guidance, encouragement, analysis and collation of the plan. Thank you - we are very grateful for all of your help.
Adoption
This Ashby Cum Fenby Community Led Plan will be adopted by Ashby Cum Fenby Parish Council on: Monday 9th May 2016.
Signed and dated by:
Chairman……………………………………………………………………………………..
Vice chair……………………………………………………………………………………..
Councillor……………………………………………………………………………………..
Councillor……………………………………………………………………………………...
Councillor……………………………………………………………………………………..
Councillor……………………………………………………………………………………..
Dated…………………………………………………………………………………………..
13
Appendix 1 - All Positive Comments
Location Comment Meadow Unique, something to treasure and preserve Sunset over Ashby cum Fenby Amazing Telephone box What a good idea, fabulous Telephone box Love the book swap idea. Gives a nice view of the village, safe... Friendly... Meadow A beautiful Meadow Meadow Beautiful Church Traditional and something to be proud of View of pond No change View of landscape Fantastic views Hall Farm Popular with consultants Deer Enclosures Seeing the deer is a treat I look forward to when out walking in the area Deer Enclosures Rare and we want to enjoy this The Ashby Herd A rare breed, gorgeous Ashby cum Fenby Natural beauty and views quiet and rural, old building and features wildlife Ashby cum Fenby Too many things: I would hate to have to leave :-) Ashby cum Fenby Hog roast every couple of years brings village together Ashby cum Fenby Quite nice Ashby cum Fenby No street lights, no pavements, lovely countryside The bubble effect after a long day at work, peace and quiet and back to nature. Recently saw a tawny owl in a tree down farm track which was quite Ashby cum Fenby beautiful Ashby cum Fenby Quaint country lanes / no street lights / no footpaths. Good neighbours Quiet, compact village which is out of the way of any hustle & bustle. Future development should be carefully considered to stop village losing its rural Ashby cum Fenby appeal. On the whole a very pretty village; quiet happy place. The lack of street lights Ashby cum Fenby and footpaths adds to its charm Ashby cum Fenby New weight restriction signs (hopefully) Ashby cum Fenby Speed limit through village Ashby cum Fenby Most people are responsible and respect the village Ashby cum Fenby Drains in most areas People showing respect for the village and cutting the hedges without being Ashby cum Fenby prompted The PROWs around the village are one of its USPs, so they should be Ashby cum Fenby defended and maintained. Ashby cum Fenby No problems/issues with PROWS The fact that we have such easy access to beautiful countryside. Most Ashby cum Fenby landowners look after them really well. Ashby cum Fenby Good selection of walks available a picturesque countryside.
14
Appendix 2 – Village Attendance By Area
15
Appendix 3 – Village Public Right of Way
16
Appendix 4 – Village Drainage
17
Appendix 5 – Proposed Development Boundary
18
Appendix 6 – Parish Boundary
B Historical GIS / University of Portsmouth, Ashby Cum Fenby CP/AP through time | Boundaries of Parish-level Unit, A Vision of Britain through Time. - URL: http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10394326/boundary - Date accessed: 18th April 2016
19
Appendix 7 – Initial Flyer
20
Appendix 8 – Speeding Vehicles Poster
21
Appendix 9 – Village Event Flyer
22
Appendix 10 – Community Pride Flyer
23
Appendix 11 – Archaeological Area
24